[19.0][MIG] upgrade_analysis

[hbrunn]

I added a commit to normalize constraint definitions for comparison, otherwise we get our work files spammed with lines like

ir.model.constraint: base.constraint_ir_embedded_actions_check_python_method_requires_name (changed definition: is now 'CHECK(NOT (python_method IS NOT NULL AND name IS NULL))' ('check(    not(python_method is not null and name is null)   )'))

and another one turning the confusing error message in the general log into a helpful informational message

[MiquelRForgeFlow]

I have some improvements to add, too.

[legalsylvain]

@hbrunn : could you take a look on conflict ?

[hbrunn]

I've rebased this manually already, no idea where github has the notion of conflicts from. let's see what ocabot does

/ocabot rebase

[OCA-git-bot]

Congratulations, PR rebased to 19.0.

[MiquelRForgeFlow]

[pedrobaeza]

/ocabot migration upgrade_analysis

[legalsylvain]

Hi @hbrunn. thanks for this porting this module.

I just used this module to generate analysis file (to estimate workload for the new Openupgrade V19 project). As a result, there is absolutely no "models" changes in all the odoo modules. I find it quite weird. Did you faced similar observation ?

thanks !

Detail :

for the ~80 modules installed for the 6 lots of the openupgrade project :

• V17 : 83 models changes ; 879 fields changes ; 1037 XML changes
• V18 : 57 models changes ; 628 fields changes ; 524 XML changes
• V19 : 0 models changes ; 792 fields changes ; 936 XML changes

[MiquelRForgeFlow]

V18 : 57 models changes ; 628 fields changes ; 524 XML changes

Where do you look to get this info?

[legalsylvain]

Where do you look to get this info?

I count the number of lines in each "section" of each openupgrade_analysis.txt file.

for instance :

• V18 base : https://github.com/OCA/OpenUpgrade/blob/18.0/openupgrade_scripts/scripts/base/18.0.1.3/upgrade_analysis.txt#L1-L8
  -> As you can see, there is "7" changes. (I mean 7 lines)
• V19 base : https://github.com/OCA/OpenUpgrade/blob/d00f66dd67454ea2271df6ca91f1b8d39a282399/openupgrade_scripts/scripts/base/19.0.1.3/upgrade_analysis.txt
  -> As you can see, there is "0" changes. (in fact, in the full log, there is nothing :

https://github.com/grap/OpenUpgrade/blob/19.0-mig-openupgrade_scripts/openupgrade_scripts/scripts/base/19.0.1.3/upgrade_general_log.txt

[MiquelRForgeFlow]

Oh. With my version of upgrade_analysis and framework, I got the model changes:

v19:

---Models in module 'base'---
obsolete model res.partner.title
new model ir.actions.server.history
new model properties.base.definition
new model properties.base.definition.mixin [abstract]
new model res.groups.privilege
new model server.action.history.wizard [transient]

[legalsylvain]

Oh. With my version of upgrade_analysis and framework,

Where is the branches of your upgrade analysis and framework ?

Thanks !

[MiquelRForgeFlow]

Where is the branches of your upgrade analysis and framework ?

In my laptop. I still need to find time to compare my work with Holger work, and check the differences.

[hbrunn]

in my run I get the same as @MiquelRForgeFlow. Local issue then?

[legalsylvain]

Thanks @hbrunn & @MiquelRForgeFlow. Indeed, there was a local problem.

I updated my analysis. (hbrunn/OpenUpgrade#19)

Note : There are more changes between V18 and V19 than between V17 and V18.

[hbrunn]

could everyone involved here who has successfully run an analysis review this so that we can merge?

[hbrunn]

@legalsylvain can you give a functional review here? this is the last bit missing for OCA/OpenUpgrade#5389 to be able to push analysis files to the v19 branch